1 So, Chairman Zero has his first corruption scandal AND his first Carteresque foreign policy disaster before he even takes office.

If the stakes weren't so high, this would be hilarious.

2 Like the Israelis' would give a shit about anything The Chosen One would 'guarantee' them.  Unlike 52% of the American electorate, Israelis' already have Obama's number.

3

Let's be honest Drew.  Iran already HAS the bomb, so there's no point in playing games about when or if they WILL get it.

I think the play here is to go ahead and treat Iran like it already has one in an attempt to out manuever them.  If they have it now, they will hopefully think twice about using it (that's what brinksmanship is intended to do), if they don't, then it doesn't matter.  Besides, the assumption for many years has been that Israel was somewhat indirectly under our nuclear umbrella anyways; or that we would at least side with them in an armed conflict.

4 To me, it sounds like cover for an appeal to get Israel to drop its nuclear weapons.

The Obama plan - no nukes for liberal democracies who happen to be our allies, and plenty of nukes for insane theocracies who continue to actively kill our service members! But don't worry folks - he brought an umbrella!

5 And if Iran gives a nuke to say, Hezbullah, and lets them do "whatever" with it... then the bomb detonates in Tel Aviv without definitive proof Iran was behind it, what does Chairman Zero do then?

6 Where do you get this information. I think you are a cry baby who cannot get over your as* whiping on Nov. 5. just go away with W, and get lost.

7 Remember, everything that Bush and conservatives in general have been concerned about for the past 8 years that democrats have been saying is just paranoid warmongering is now suddently going to become true and a real threat that must be dealt with.

8 'Nuclear Umbrella' sounds nice, but it's not actually a defense against anything, just a promise of counterattack.

It sure would be nice if we, you know, had a defense or something against ballistic missiles, but everyone knows that such a thing is impossible. Ballistic missiles are the ninjas of weapons. You can't see them, you can't stop them, and you certainly can't destroy them by shooting another missile at them. Everyone knows that 'missile defense' is unproven, and we shouldn't even try.

Right, Obama?

9 WAF

10 "To me, it sounds like cover for an appeal to get Israel to drop its nuclear weapons"

Bingo.
The One is looking to offer a "nuclear free" middle-east.  Of course, without nuclear weapons, Israel is dead.  For that happy outcome, Iran would gladly dispose of its nuclear weapons program.
Or at least, pretend to.

The One is going to sell the Jews down the river for a Nobel Peace prize. 

11 I understood this as obama wanting Israel bombed. Samantha Powers is waving her fairy wand. I hope she gets badly chafed as she rides that unicorn bareback

12 The members of the Illinois Flat Earth Society must be stopped, especially those from the Chicago chapter. All the F.B.I agents here are real busy. Suggestions welcome.

13 nuclear umbrella sounds as nice as a sh*t pie, served steaming hot.

14

Hey, Bob, you're kidding, right?  We'll get over it just like you liberals got over your BDS.  That would be about===== 4 years from now.

BTW, I believe that Iran thinks that if they can destroy Israel with a nuke, it would be worth it if every Muslim in Iran died.  But, of course, the leaders would know ahead of time so they could take a vacation in Berkeley or San Francisco.

15

…so Israel, we have no intention of stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. But what we CAN promise is this – if they annihilate the Jewish state we will annihilate them in turn. We realize you won't be around to see our response, but TRUST US - it'll be a doozy!

 

16 Okay so if Iran does strike Israel with a nuclear weapon, what is our response?

17 Yeah, Like after Israel is gone, and Iran is partially glass, We'll bomb Iran?  This is the criminal Justice thing applied to strateigic defense (or something); we'll arrest Iran after they've killed their targets.  Yippee.

18 V the K #5 has the right take.  There's not much forensic evidence after a nuclear truck bomb.  So Iran gives Hezbullah the keys and says there's 72 virgins for the first driver who gets to Tel Aviv and presses the red button.  Al Kiduh takes credit.  What, we're going to be more mad at them?

19 Hey,Bob Sirop, instead of attacking your Dear Leader's critics, why don't you offer a defense of his policies?

20 Tea Leaf:
  Obama thinks that Israel really is going to bomb Iran very soon and is desperate to come up with a viable alternative.

21

The reality is that as long as we have 200,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention forces in Bahrain, Qatar and Oman, some limited strike to attempt to take out Iran's nuclear facilities is a non-starter.   First, there is doubt that any conventional strike would retard the nuclear program at all.

Any bombing short of regime change would leave those troops open to all sorts of retaliation from Iranian forces, including special operations forces and Iraqi and Afghan proxies of the Iranians.  The arms caches are already there.  Not to mention the threat from Scud-type missile strikes on US bases in the region.

Obviously we do not have the forces to guarantee change to a regime of our liking in Iran.  In the end, that would require some ground involvement.

The news today is that the Brits are pulling out by March.  There will be no coalition forces from Basra to Diwaniyah.  Who's going to secure the US LOCs?

Our weakness is another legacy of Rumsfeld and Bush trying to fight a war on the cheap, with not enough troops to cover contingencies. 

22 Okay so if Iran does strike Israel with a nuclear weapon, what is our response?
Posted by: polynikes at December 11, 2008 11:11 AM (m2CN7)

Personally, I don't care about that at this point. I think we should be focused on stopping Iran from getting nukes in the first place.  If we do the right thing, we'll never have to worry about how to respond.

Obama (and sadly Bush) seem to have decided to skip over that step.

23 Well, Obama can ask.  Israel handing over any responsibility for its defense to Obama is about as likely as DrewM getting a weekend of the hot and steamy with Megyn what'shername.

24 I thought that "The One" was going to rid the world of all nuclear weapons?? What happened to that ???

25 Posted by: icus at December 11, 2008 11:15 AM (mOFr4)

God forgive me but he's right.

The idea that after 7 years of war, we haven't substantially increased the size of the military (Army in this case) is borderline criminal neglect.

The strategic implications of being tied down in Iraq, even with a substantially reduced combat role, are and obvious and have been for a long time.

But hey, I was yelling about the size of the force reductions during the early and mid 90's. Since Gore hadn't invented the tubes by then you couldn't hear me but trust me, I was.

26 Yeah, Like after Israel is gone, and Iran is partially glass, We'll bomb Iran?

More likely, Chairman Zero will send Susan "If we use the word 'genocide' and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November [congressional] election?" Rice to the UN and seek a resolution condeming Iran. China and Russia will block the resolution. Eventually, sanctions will be imposed, restricting Iran to two desserts or less in the UN cafeteria. These will not be enforced.

Barry and Michelle "Anaconda" Obama will let Barbara Walters interview them while playing with puppies on the White House lawn, and the glassy eyed Obamamoonies will swoon. All will be forgotten.

27
as long as we have 200,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention forces in Bahrain, Qatar and Oman, some limited strike to attempt to take out Iran's nuclear facilities is a non-starter. 

Right. Because being right next door to Iran is not the best time to make a military strike. Let's vacate the Middle East, bring everyone and everything home, and THEN strike Iran.

The only reason the Middle East hasn't spun out of control after 9/11 is precisely because President Bush decided to make a huge U.S. military presence in the region.

28 Israel has a plan to strike back even if Iran destroys them completely, and Iran knows it. Israel has subs permanently stationed in the Arabian sea as a second strike capability. So this umbrella is not all that useful.

The trick for a nuclear-armed rogue nation is to keep on drawing small quantities of blood. Enough to sap morale, but not enough to merit a armed response. This is achieved by threatening to go nuclear at the slightest problem. Pakistan has been doing that to India for a long time, and expect Iran to do the same once they have a declared and demonstrated nuke capability. India can crush Pakistan in a conventional war, and Israel can cripple Iran conventionally too, but the nuclear threat keeps that at bay.

29 Isn't this the U.S.'s de facto stance already?

30

Personally, I don't care about that at this point. I think we should be focused on stopping Iran from getting nukes in the first place.  If we do the right thing, we'll never have to worry about how to respond.

Obama (and sadly Bush) seem to have decided to skip over that step.

I assume by stopping you mean military action?

If not, have we stopped trying to get N. Korea to give up its nuclear weapons by putting South Korea under our nuclear umbrella?

31 Posted by: polynikes at December 11, 2008 11:21 AM (m2CN7)

Yes.

I know military action comes with costs. So does a nuclear armed Iran. It's not as if one option is cost free. Since we are going to pay a price either way, I'd rather pay the price and at the end of the day eliminate (or more likely, seriously degrade) Iran's ability to have nuclear weapons.

If there were a cost free option, I'd take it. I just don't see one.

32

You guys talk like our troops in the region are defenseless. Sound just like the whining Democraps before we invaded. Oh they’ll use chemical weapons on us, oh whine we will have massive casualties, whine oh whine, quagmire.

 

The fact is that within a few hours of war start Iran would cease to have an air force or navy and within a few weeks they would have no army.

33 I hear obama crying, someone get him an organic nappie to wipe whose "kind eyes"......boohoo...why can't we all get along?......I'm gonna be like those koreans on the roof with a shot gun, brace me for the recoil ! can't believe our pres to be is such a wet b*tch....(dirty wet b*tch)

34 To me, it sounds like cover for an appeal to get Israel to drop its nuclear weapons.

I think that's an excellent idea. Target suggestions?

35

DrewM. at December 11, 2008 11:26 AM (hlYel

I agree with you other than being upset at putting Israel under our nuclear umbrella and projecting that it means we have given up on getting a nuclear free Iran. 

My take is that if Israel is under this umbrella and there is a conventional military strike on specific targets and Iran happens to have a nuclear capacity we were not aware of, they may be slightly hesitant in using it.

36 I am kind of surprised the plan does not mention "The joos".

37 Remember what Biden said....America would not like the response the O had to a crisis...guess what?  He won't retaliate, and then he will be a hero to all of the lefties who just hate war and sympathize with poor lil ol Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc.

38 Posted by: polynikes at December 11, 2008 11:32 AM (m2CN7)

I'm not upset at the idea per se, I have always assumed when push came to shove we would respond this way.

What I am upset about is the idea that making it formal policy is somehow a substitute for dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions. Announcing a counter attack policy is no substitute for having a prevention policy.

39
This is the classic Democrat "bait & switch".

1) You start by saying you are addressing the problem of a nuclear armed Iran.

2) You then expand your proposal to a far loftier goal -- a nuclear free Middle East.

3) You then make the switch: the focus becomes disarming Israel. You claim it's the best approach since it not only will it remove Iran's incentive to acquire a nuke, but also achieve a nuclear free Middle East, where unicorns farting jasmine can prance under hopey-changey rainbows.

4) Profit. Impose some sort of bogus UN program that is supposed to oversee Iran but  is bought off with Iranian oil revenue.

Three goals accomplished:

1) An Israel without nukes

2) An Iran with nukes.

3) Lots of $$$.

Sounds like a plan!

40 If Iran chooses to engage Israel with a nuke, it won't be at the end of a ballistic missile.  They will ship it there via fezbollah, or contract it out to some enterprising fisherman.  The terrorist states in the ME have learned a lot from the attack on Mumbai.

K

41 16 Okay so if Iran does strike Israel with a nuclear weapon, what is our response?

Posted by: polynikes at December 11, 2008 11:11 AM (m2CN7)

We will be very angry, and we will write a letter telling Iran how angry we are.

42

Again icus short on facts.

Britain announced Wednesday it will withdraw all but a handful of its 4,000 soldiers from Iraq next year. The U.S. is expected to shift a brigade to Basra in southern Iraq, where most of the British forces are located, to ensure the security of supply lines into the country from Kuwait.

43 Is Obama as stupid as he seems?

Oh, no!  You see, he went to Harvard Law School and we all know that lawyers are the smartest of the super-smartest smart people ever.  It's not like law school is where people go if math is too hard for them.  Not at all.  It's not like law school trains people away from using logic and deconstructing the idea of an objective truth.

Truth is whatever a lawyer can successfully argue that it is.  So if Obama makes a good speech about a stupid idea, it immediately ceases to be a stupid idea -- until facts get in the way, of course.

And he wrote a book!  All by himself!  That makes him brilliant too.  It was almost as good as a Bill Ayers book.

All of these Obama voters who think (a) that he is particularly intelligent, (b) that they are intelligent for supporting him and (c) just finding people intelligent enough to run the show will solve our problems are in for a rude awakening, even though they could have learned it from history.

44 Yeah, I bet Israel will jump all over this offer. B. Hussein O. will retaliate against anyone who destroys Israel (and there must be indisputable proof that it has been destroyed and that it was done by specific entities listed in the insurance policy)... right after he gets UN approval.

45 Worst President-Elect EVER!!!!!!!!

46

AmishDude #43

I have had those exact thoughts for about a year and a half now but I haven't been able to deliver them as clearly and concise as you just did....Well done.

47 This was originally Krauthamer's idea, BTW.

48 This is John F. Kennedy amateur actions all over again. Talk big but hesitate ensures failure. How long until he has his Bay of Pigs and thousands lose their lives due to decision paralysis?

49 first, who listens to Biden....(guess the iran was) also, anyone know if a whole country (Israel) can fit under the obama bus? and wasn't rahm appointed to strong arm the middleast? oh wait, rahm isn't talking.....what kind of administration is this?.....a corrupt sham lead by the biggest fluff of all, obama's nuclear umbrella is a cotton ball to a gun wound, it's sick that our secret service will be paid by us to protect this softboiled egg.

50 Drew,

there is a valid argument that US Military size should have increased a lot during President Bush's tenure. But that argument is more relevant when it comes to manpower size, and a bigger manpower is needed for COIN type operations. If US has to go to war with Iran, I doubt imposing democracy and avoiding civilian casualities will be a pressing concern. US Military is more than capable of grinding Iran into dust without putting boots on the ground.

51

Again icus short on facts.

Britain announced Wednesday it will withdraw all but a handful of its 4,000 soldiers from Iraq next year. The U.S. is expected to shift a brigade to Basra in southern Iraq, where most of the British forces are located, to ensure the security of supply lines into the country from Kuwait.

Posted by: polynikes at December 11, 2008 11:41 AM (m2CN7)

Great catch, poly.  That means one brigade less somewhere else.  It also means one brigade on the Iranian border, a long way from other US forces.

It's just one more stretch of our forces, which could not be sustained under the pressure of a full-scale war with Iran.  Basra is full of Iranians and Iranian proxy forces. 

There's a reason why the Brits are getting out.  They remember Khartoum, Gallipoli and the Charge of the Light Brigade.

52 Here's a scenario. Obama floats this idea in order to scare the shit out of Israel, in order to push them into striking Iran before the inauguration (I'm surprised that it hasn't happened yet, to be honest). So whatever the fallout will be, it can clearly be blamed on Bush, since it "happened on Bush's watch,  not mine. I wasn't even in office yet."

It fits Obama's pattern of avoiding responsibility.

53
I had a nightmare last night. I dreamed that a totally inexperienced Chicago ward heeler had run for president, and won! I woke up in a cold sweat. It was just awful.

What's that you say? Oh, Christ ...

54 #1 of the two classic blunders: "never get involved with a land war in Asia."

I predict that within 60 days Obama will go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line. /sarcasm

(Princess Bride reference)

55 Tushar,

Excellent point that some of us may not be aware of. Israel's subs are a deterrent (for sane people). But the problem is that Ahmadinejad (sp) is bat-shit crazy. He is waiting for the 12th Imam to show up, and nuking Israel at the expense of  millions of Iranians is just fine with him, because it will pave the way for the 12th Imam.

The best result by far would be a popular uprising in Iran, and with oil dropping to unexpectedly low levels, the current regime can't keep the people happy much longer (I hope). They were in deep shit when oil was selling for $100; just imagine how bad it's going to be when oil settles at $40-$60 for the next year or two. But before there is an uprising, their head loony is going to nuke Israel, to avoid losing power in a revolt, and to hasten the end of the world in preparation for #12.

And that's why Israel has to hit them first, and at least delay the production of a bomb.

56 I have this really bad feeling the US is going to get nuked multiple times during the Obama presidency.

57 #47 - He's gone from coining useful terms like BDS, to actually creating policy for the new administration?

58

Israel's security dependent upon a third party. Yeah that's worked well before .... plz israel tell us to f off!

59

But the problem is that Ahmadinejad (sp) is bat-shit crazy. He is waiting for the 12th Imam to show up, and nuking Israel at the expense of  millions of Iranians is just fine with him, because it will pave the way for the 12th Imam.

Control of the Iranian armed forces and Revolutionary Guards Corps is with the Supreme Leader and Council of Guardians, not the president.  Ayatollah Khamanei is the commander-in-chief and the real power in Iran, not Ahmedinejad. 

 

60

Look, Israel is gone. You knew that as soon as Obama was elected. Get over it. It's water under the bridge now. Move on.

Also get off Obama's case. He does pretty well for an empty suit. He gave a speech and looked good doing it, what more can you expect?

61 V the K beat me with the meta-stupidity of this plan.  When Iran nukes Israel, it won't be with an ICBM lighting up the computers as we go to DEFCON5, it'll be on an otherwise uneventful day during which Tel Aviv vaporizes.  The idea that Obama will authorize the world's first ICBM attack over a "criminal act by a rouge terrorist group" is laughable.

62 >>Ayatollah Khamanei is the commander-in-chief and the real power in Iran, not Ahmedinejad.

And Khamanei is a decent person who has Israel's best interest in mind.

/sarc

63 Obama's statement is ridiculous!  Israel does not need a US umbrella, they have one of their own.

I am pretty sure this is a ploy to get Israel give up their nukes.  They won't of course, which will be shown by the leftist media as another example of how Israel is "blocking progress" in the mideast peace process.

Then when a massive attack happens on Israeli soil all the usual suspects can blame Israel for it.

K

64 hey Israel just do us a favor and nuke The One - Blag might pay you off

65 doesn't all this smell like samantha powers?

66

Why do people say that conventional strikes would not retard the nuclear program.  You can't run centrifuges without electricity, and the US and Israel have the power to shut down Iran's electricity for pretty much as long as we want to I bet.

Could they have back up generators large enough to do the job?  I guess its possible.

67

How exactly do you deter someone who regards death in battle at the hands of the infidel as a promotion?  You don't.  If Israel or the US want to prevent Iran from using nuclear weapons there is one and only one way to do it and that is via a nuclear pre-emptive strike.  Since no one is willing to do that, we will just have to wait unitl we lose a city or ten.

As for Israel, they would be utter fools to trust a country that won't even fight Iran when Iran more or less openly kills their servicemen through terror proxies that everybody knows report to the Mullahs.

68

There's a reason why the Brits are getting out.  They remember Khartoum, Gallipoli and the Charge of the Light Brigade.

Mostly though, they're getting out because they've become childishly naive with regards to survival skills. Kinda like 53% of the US.

69 The Joos aren't going to wait for Barry to act or not act to prevent Iran from getting nukes. Unless they've lost their nerve as much as *we* have that is.

And they don't need our support or approval to strike. There are plenty of other nations in the region that will do just about anything to prevent Iran from getting bombs, even secretly cooperating with the Little Satan.

70

Icus finally posts something largely true. A-job probably hates Jews as much as he likes to say he does and he probably hates us as much as he says he does. But mostly he likes to blame his incompetence on us and the Jews and that plays well to the Persian rabble.

But it wouldn't be his decision anyway. And yes, Iran would almost certainly use proxies to deliver a major attack. Now whether that would cause even a moment's hesitation in retaliation for any adversary with a full set of nuts is a different story. The evidence of Iran's support for even Sunni terror organizations is compelling to say the least. God help them if a nuclear attack were traced to Hizbollah.

71 Geraghty's snark on this is pretty sweet.

http://tinyurl.com/6cbpj6

72 Icus,

Stop believing the bullshit spouted by the MSM. They want everyone to believe that Ahmadinejad doesn't have real power. That way he can be ignored. The Mullahs like having him as the public face of Iran because they can hide in the background and pull his strings. And Ahmadinejad has real power, and is a real player in Iranian politics. He is saying what they believe and want, he's just not as politic about it as they would prefer. But don't fool yourself, they would love to nuke Israel.

73

This is why Israel has never admitted having nukes:  so a dipshit like Obama can't geld them.

 

74 God help them if a nuclear attack were traced to Hizbollah.

I don't see Hizbollah being quiet about that. Eventually, someone's gonna run their mouth about their historic strike against the hated infidels.

75 How do you deter an enemy who would nuke you only through non-state proxies? Will it help if Israel declares that in case of a nuke attack, they will nuke Iran back first and then maybe think about a timetable for asking questions?

76 Nuking through non-state proxies would not hide the responsible party necessarily.  It is my understanding that nuclear materail from different production sites carryes different amounts of various elements that act as a signature for the production site.  Is that the case? 

77 I think Kestrel's #63 has nailed the strategy: make Israel the bad guy for not 'joining the world community.'

If we weren't talking about nuclear annihilation, I could better admire the brilliance of the move.

78

Of course, we and the Israelis have cooperated with Iran in the past, like when Ollie North helped channel US missiles and Israeli weapons to Iran in the 1980s. 

After 9/11, Iran helped the US overthrow the Taliban, and then helped us in the process which elected Karzai.   Read Ambassador James Dobbins on the subject.

Iran has also armed and trained insurgents fighting US forces in Iraq.  They have also pulled back some of their punches in Iraq from time to time. 

The Iranian nuclear program wasn't motivated by Israel, but could end up putting Israel and Iran in a balance of terror.  It's a deterrent to an attack by the US.  It makes a lot of sense from the Iranian point of view. 

Bush put Iran in the "Axis of Evil," along with Iraq, which he invaded and N.Korea, which he didn't.  After the invasion of Iraq, some of the Bush gang talked about going to Tehran next.  The Iranians then sent an offer via the Swiss for a comprehensive deal with the USA.  The USA ignored them in the glow of their recent "Mission Accomplished" victory in Iraq.  Read the former NSC staffer Flint Leverett on that subject.  Iran now had US forces on both borders, with Bush administration flacks and neocon journalists crowing about war with Iran.  The lesson to the Iranians was clear.

Things then started to go south in Iraq.  And the Iranians fired up their bomb program. 

One of the biggest fuck-ups in US foreign policy history.

 

 

79 Now that everyone knows "The One" lies, how do the Israelis enforce this? Iraq and Iran were in a contest to see who had nukes first, and Saddam was way out in the lead.

80

Iraq and Iran were in a contest to see who had nukes first, and Saddam was way out in the lead.

Nonsense, unless you mean two inches as opposed to one inch beyond the starting line on a one mile race. 

81 Israel has to be thinking of pulling a Michael Corleone baptismal scene.  Obama and the unwashed lefties are hell bent on giving away Israel.  It is amazing to me that even the Republicans continue to pretend that the followers of the religion of murder want peace.  Hopefully, Israel will have enough balls to stand up to Obama, Clinton and Carter.

Angry White Dude

82 Tushar, I've been saying for years that a fail-deadly posture is the minimal level of deterrence. The biggest problem most nuclear-armed states have is persuading their enemies that there is a bright-line standard past which the nukes will be flying, come what may. It's why we had launch-on-warning and Flexible Response - to scare the piss out of the Soviets. If you have ten thousand warheads and no political will to use them, then they're junk. And if you fail to use them even once when your stated policy says otherwise, you are a busted flush. So we engineered things such that in the event of a nuclear attack, we were essentially forced to retaliate. It was high-stakes stuff, and could have ended very badly, but it worked.

83 I remember code pink "ladies" posing with amackagymidad, (yeah I know).......and code pink loves the unicorn's gism...and it's faithful rider, it's all about connecting the dots.

84 icus,

Iran didn't 'go south' in 2003 or 2004.

That happened in 1979.  They have chanted death to America every single day since then.

Blaming Bush for Iran is disgusting.  We have them surrounding, it's true, but that hasn't provoked them... it's contained them.  Iran has been the world's foremost supporter or terrorism since JIMMY CARTER.

85 I thought BHO was against, and said he would defund, "star wars"?. And other such "missile nonsense" that was "unproven technology" and a waste of money. This would free up cash for Unicorns ans such shit...Another pledge broken??

86 " Obammy, how I loves ya, how I loves ya, my dear Obammy"

87

Things then started to go south in Iraq.  And the Iranians fired up their bomb program.

Thats about 5 years of firing up.

Real impressive.

FAIL

88 Icus, France built a nuke plant in Iraq with the expressed purpose of defending Iraq in a war.  And you call that 2 inches into an arms race?

89
Nobody is going to nuke anybody soon. All of this talk isn't about nukes -- it's about money.

From my previous post:

This is the classic Democrat "bait & switch".

1) You start by saying you are addressing the problem of a nuclear armed Iran.

2) You then expand your proposal to a far loftier goal -- a nuclear free Middle East.

3) You then make the switch: the focus becomes disarming Israel. You claim it's the best approach since it not only will it remove Iran's incentive to acquire a nuke, but also achieve a nuclear free Middle East, where unicorns farting jasmine can prance under hopey-changey rainbows.

4) Profit. Impose some sort of bogus UN program that is supposed to oversee Iran but  is bought off with Iranian oil revenue.

This plan would immediately send oil prices up over $100/bbl, making Iran and all the UN/Democrat grifters rich (Democrats really do believe they can buy anybody off and the food-for-oil program pretty much proved them right). It turns Israel, rather than Iran, into the pariah.

And finally:

It provides a great opportunity for a Nobel Peace prize. The only question remaining is who would win it? Obama, America's first black president? Hillary, who proposed the idea in the debates and saw it implemented as Secretary of State? Bill Clinton, as some sort of special Mid-East envoy?

Think about it. It would accomplish absolutely nothing in terms of making the Middle East safer. But it would provide a great opportunity to make lots of money while winning a Nobel prize.

Which of the two are Democrats more interested in?

90 "Words, just words."

91

This is why Israel has never admitted having nukes:  so a dipshit like Obama can't geld them.

Thread-winner!

It is my understanding that nuclear materail from different production sites carryes different amounts of various elements that act as a signature for the production site.  Is that the case?

Yes, but not if you have your head in the sand mumbling platitudes, like our Fearless Leader and his leftist advisors would be in that situation.  Not to mention that all the Concerned Peaceful Scientists for Scientific Peace and Concern would immediately flood the MSM with reasons why that kind of evidence cannot be trusted.  Evidence is merely a tool to an end with them...

see "Warming, Global"

92

I have this really bad feeling the US is going to get nuked multiple times during the Obama presidency.

The ones who will do it like hitting big cities. So...what's the downside?

Given that Israel is 1/17 the size of Japan, or 1/20 that of California, they can't recover from a nuke strike. Preemption is their only choice.

93

obama bareback on a white big horned unicorn with wings <-------- should reinforce this image to the extremist---that we are about peace now, no more star wars, our new leader is about getting along with backroom deals and paying to play, (did Israel fall back on a payment to the obama hope fund?)

94

Here y'all go:  Obama's Nuclear Umbrella

95 End, or let Iran end, Isreal and you have Peace in the Mid-East. .........In this corner, weighing what his suit weighs, 13lbs., an Alderman from the from the most corrupt part of Chicago, and his bitch wife. Backed by all the corrupt motherfucking Klinton crew, BHO....Ding, Ding, Ding wiener of the now fucking useless Nobody piece Plumh...BHO!!!11!!! 

96

According to icus, Iran was just a covert ally in our cold war battles until evil Bush stabbed them in the back and gave them no choice but to go nuclear.  That hostage crisis, Hezbollah sponsorship and Marine barracks bombing were done in preparation for the Bush presidency. 

icus you are a dishonest douchebag who has been caught lying directly or by omission.  Nothing worse than someone who thinks he is smarter than he is. Arrogant ignorance.

97 Posted by: icus at December 11, 2008 12:55 PM (mOFr4)

Come on icus, you're smarter than that. History didn't start in March of 2003.

Iran had been eying nuclear weapons as far back as the 80's. Did you think the Iranians didn't know Saddam wanted nukes or that they thought if he got them he would only use them to rattle Israel? 

The Mideast was fucked up long before Bush got there. You can't pin everything on him.  Mind you, I'm not saying his actions haven't and won't continue to have consequences (foreseen and unforeseen) but don't let your dislike for the guy cloud the reality of the situation.

98

Icus, France built a nuke plant in Iraq with the expressed purpose of defending Iraq in a war.  And you call that 2 inches into an arms race?

I don't know where you got the idea that the French built a light-water reactor "to defend Iraq in a war," but Osirak wasn't even fueled when it was destroyed.  Even without IAEA inspection, estimates were it would have years to get enough plutonium for one bomb. 

After Osirak, Iraq had no way, even in theory, of making plutonium or enriching uranium to weapons grade.

Iran does appear to have a serious bomb program with their centrifuges, assuming that they can get around the IAEA.

99 If the US and Israel why can't the rest of the world including Iran? Why stop at Iran? I am sure Somali Pirates could use a nuke or two? Why not them? Why only America, America. Smacks of Egocentrism. It has got to stop.

100 Wyle E. Obama will always be looking for magic answers from Acme-Soros International that are free for just mouthing the words.  And lo and behold, with the help of the MSM and the 52% of Americans who are idiots / Democrats (birm), he will always find them!

101

Iran does appear to have a serious bomb program with their centrifuges, assuming that they can get around the IAEA.

HAHAHAHA.  You're more of a joke than the IAEA is icus.

102 Does this help "reboot" our image? I hope so. Because all that is important is image.

103

When Iran nukes Israel, it won't be with an ICBM lighting up the computers as we go to DEFCON5

DEFCON 5 is the lowest readiness state, 1 is the highest.

Though that might be a good description of 0sabama's responce.

 

104 Israel owes its existence to a very real commitment to the "Sampson contingency."  They have made it abundantly clear that they would turn the sands of the middle east into glass before they allow their enemies to march them into ovens once again.

If senator Obama seriously thinks they will give that up, he is demonstrating to the world at large how incredibly ignorant he is--and THAT is dangerous for the United States.

105 ICUS:

You shouldn't attempt to be intellectually dishonest with me.  I will go apeshit in every thread on this blog that you appear on if you attempt it.


You say:

I don't know where you got the idea that the French built a light-water reactor "to defend Iraq in a war,"

I say:

Chirac built Osirak for Saddam even though in a 1975 interview Saddam had admitted: "The agreement with France is the first concrete step toward the production of the Arab atomic weapon."

By 1983, Iraq was purchasing 51.5% of all French arms exports.

No where outside the Arab world does anti semitism run as deep as in France.

106

According to icus, Iran was just a covert ally in our cold war battles until evil Bush stabbed them in the back and gave them no choice but to go nuclear.  That hostage crisis, Hezbollah sponsorship and Marine barracks bombing were done in preparation for the Bush presidency. 

icus you are a dishonest douchebag who has been caught lying directly or by omission.  Nothing worse than someone who thinks he is smarter than he is. Arrogant ignorance.

Posted by: polynikes at December 11, 2008 01:16 PM (m2CN7)

You can't argue with Icus, He's educated himself with a library stocked with books written by the left-wing former intelligence geniuses who missed the '93 WTC bombing, the bombing of Khobar Towers, the bombing of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the 1995 Riyadh bombing, the plot to attack the USS Cole, 9/11 and who bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade.

Real experts, y'know.

107

Come on icus, you're smarter than that. History didn't start in March of 2003.

Iran had been eying nuclear weapons as far back as the 80's. Did you think the Iranians didn't know Saddam wanted nukes or that they thought if he got them he would only use them to rattle Israel? 

I will go you one better and say that the megalomaniac Shah had nuclear ambitions in the 1970s.

But see my post above.  Ambitions or a "program" are not results.  The Iranian program began in earnest with the construction of those centrifuges to enrich uranium, which appears to be a post-2003 development.  The first announcement of the centrifuges actually enriching uranium I could find is from 2006.

The Iranian have designed improved centrifuges since then, better than the AQ Khan designs they had.  They've really stepped up on recent years.  Why?  Iraq is not a threat any more.  Which country has become a major threat to Iran in recent years?

 

108 I think Israel ought to announce that any nuclear attack on Israeli soil would result in a retaliatory strike against Mecca.

During the hajj.

Right on the tippy-top of that magic meteor they all revere so highly.

Then leave it to the other Gulf nations to keep Iran in check.

109 doug,

Yes, it's called "nuclear forensics" I believe. I think it's based on a known catalog of material, and supposedly the Iranian material has easily traced contaminants. Supposedly being the key word.

Paper on post-use forensics
http://tinyurl.com/5dkzup

110 The Iranian program began in earnest with the construction of those centrifuges to enrich uranium, which appears to be a post-2003 development.

Posted by: icus at December 11, 2008 01:31 PM (mOFr4)

It's rather convenient to date action (as opposed to ambitions) to the centrifuge program. Why not date it back to 98 when the Iranians cut the deal with the Russians to build the Bushehr plant?

A nuclear program is a continuum, the centrifuges are towards the middle to end of that, yet since it fits your anti-Bush narrative you decide to start there. Nice.

111

Icus once again short on facts.

The EU officials were told that cooperation between Iran and 68-year-old Khan and associates from his Khan Research Laboratories (KRL) began in mid-90s and included more than a dozen meetings over several years, the report said.

Most of the meetings were between Mohammad Farooq, centrifuge expert from KRL, and Iranians in Karachi, Kuala Lumpur and Teheran, it said.

112 "Oh, no!  You see, he went to Harvard Law School and we all know that lawyers are the smartest of the super-smartest smart people ever."

This part is worth re-iterating, especially if you've ever actually worked for a lawyer.  These people can be remarkably stupid, lacking all common sense, thoughtful insight or creative vision.

Before I worked for lawyers, I assumed that graduating law school had to mean that you were really intelligent.  It means nothing of the sort.  Nothing.

113 Chirac gave Iraq a gas graphite reactor, which is not designed to produce electricity with any efficiency.  It's designed for weapons production.  It's completely uncontroversial that the Iraq reactor was built with the specific and sole purpose of make Saddam's Iraq a nuclear weapons power.

Icus doesn't know where I'd get that idea...  I got it by READING AND STUFF.

114

DEFCON 5 is the lowest readiness state, 1 is the highest.

Woops!  Better go watch WarGames again and refresh my memory on the US nuke response plan. 

115

According to icus, Iran was just a covert ally in our cold war battles until evil Bush stabbed them in the back and gave them no choice but to go nuclear.  That hostage crisis, Hezbollah sponsorship and Marine barracks bombing were done in preparation for the Bush presidency. 

"That hostage crisis, Hezbollah sponsorship and Marine barracks bombing" didn't prevent Ollie North from selling US and Israeli weapons to Iran, and Robert McFarlane from bringing a chocolate cake to Ayatollah Khomeini to kiss his ass.  Just sayin.'

The record of how the Iranians helped in Afghanistan in 2001-02 is out in the open:

Ambassdor James Dobbins:

The coalition then worked closely with the United States to secure agreement among all elements of the Afghan opposition on the formation of a broadly based successor to the Taliban regime.

As the American representative at the UN conference in Bonn, Germany, where this agreement was reached, I worked closely with the Iranian delegation and others. Iranian representatives were particularly helpful.

It was, for instance, the Iranian delegate who first insisted that the agreement include a commitment to hold democratic elections in Afghanistan. This same Iranian persuaded the Northern Alliance to make the essential concession that allowed the meeting to conclude successfully.

116 So, Icus, are you saying that Oliver North is the authority on who is our enemy?  I think he'd admit he was selling weapons to America's enemy.  That was one of the shitty aspects of the cold war.

Are you refusing to admit you were wrong about the Osirak MTR?

You really think had Bush not been elected, Iran would be further from having nukes?  Are you really this delusional?

117

I think icus suffers from what I like to think of as "baking cookies."  The case can really apply to Iraq or Iran in this case.  We'll look at Iraq.  Consider baking cookies to be like building a nuclear bomb.  The thing is that you are forbidden from baking cookies in the kitchen for whatever reason.  What Iraq was doing is getting the stove with their osirak reactor.  So they have their stove, and they were also working on getting all the ingredients together to bake their cookies.   Then Israel comes along and takes away they're stove.  And then the gulf war comes along so everyone is watching Iraq carefully to make sure they don't bake their cookies.  The thing is that they still have all the ingredients, and the chefs to do the baking.  Along with people attempting to assure everyone that don't worry Iraq won't do it so look away.  That's what icus is.  He's declaring that while Iraq wanted a bomb they wouldn't actually do it.  Nevermind they have the ingredients out, the cookbook pages marked.

Its the same with Iran.  Its all just for peaceful purposes.  They really don't plan to make a bomb.  They're not going to bake any cookies.  Even though they're mixing the dough and getting ready to pour in the chocolate chips.

118
James Dobbins is Director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at Rand. He was a U.S. Special Envoy in Kosovo, Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia, and Afghanistan.

Wow, icus -- that's quite a resume of failure!

119

It's rather convenient to date action (as opposed to ambitions) to the centrifuge program. Why not date it back to 98 when the Iranians cut the deal with the Russians to build the Bushehr plant?

A nuclear program is a continuum, the centrifuges are towards the middle to end of that, yet since it fits your anti-Bush narrative you decide to start there. Nice.

A nuclear program is a continuum from sitting around bullshitting about one, to "having meetings" to actually building something, to building something that can actually produce weapons-grade material.  It's only in the latter stages that you commit to significant expense.  And those committments seem to have come after 2003 in the case of Iran.

I think we missed a great opportunity to deal from a position of strength with Iran in 2003.  I think we could have got major concessions from them, including a shut down of their bomb program and better relations across the board.  Instead, Bushies like Bolton just wanted to "talk tough," following the Bush mantra of "Speak loudly and whittle your stick down to a twig."

OK, Shill you may have a point about Osirak.  You can dispute about how far they were along, or the capabilities of that reactor.  There are physicists who say it wasn't suited for bomb-making, like Richard Wilson at Harvard.  It's beyond my capability.  But since that reactor was never fueled, it's hard to say the Iraqis got very far.  Certainly not nearly as far as the Iranians are now.

 

120

icus at December 11, 2008 01:43 PM (mOFr4)

Besides veering off the points you originally try to make, you have a awful habit of leaving out information that damages your argument.  Your little statements have much more relative context than what you list.  Its tiresome to always have to edit your statements to include the entire context in order to continue the debate.  I've established that's what you do and you no longer have any credibility beyond those that live by the headline or snippet.  Peddle your misinformation elsewhere.  The conservation here doesn't benefit from your half-truths.  

121 Whoops, forgot to italicize DrewM's quote at the beginning of my last post.

122 Something many don't know is that the US Air Force also bombed Osirak years later with F-117s because the Iraqis were rebuilding it.  It's not like Saddam ever stopped his nuclear weapons program.

The Iranians, alas, are much smarter than the Iraqis.  Their nuclear weapons program has been ongoing since the 80s, but it's decentralized.  Just as their delivery system, networks of crazies, is decentralized.  Waiting for Iraq tio fuel their reactor before attacking, as Icus insists, is of course a canard meant to prevent an attack (since attacking a fueled nuclear reactor is basically the same as using a dirty nuke).

Similarly, waiting for Iran to actually have a nuke (which we already have done), has been insane.  That's the part of Bush's policy that I am upset with (though what choice did Bush have with Icus and Pelosi making winning Iraq nearly impossible much less doing more).

123

Better go watch WarGames again...

You rang?

124

Posted by: polynikes at December 11, 2008 02:03 PM (m2CN7)

Is anything I said about Iranian cooperation with the US in Afghanistan false?  Didn't the US sell arms to Iran in the 1980s?    Didn't the Iranians offer a deal in 2003?

I know it makes things complicated for you, providing "context," but tough shit there. 

125 Haha, Icus thinks that there is some dispute about Osirak's capabilities, and that we have to wait until it's fueled with radioactive death before bombing it (which we obviously can't do safely).  How convenient for our enemies.

Sorry, anyone claiming a MTR isn't useful for making weapons simple has no idea about the topic.  A cursory understanding of MTRs in nations with no other nuclear reactors is that it's for weapons.  We had this argument 20 years ago when the world's sane agreed that Menachem Begin saved the world.  Admitting Israel had a right to destory that reactor is something Icus feels is beyond his capability (his own words).

Well, then maybe Icus shouldn't be profering his views on much more complicated matters... such as Bush's blameworthiness for Iran today.

126 A nuclear program is a continuum from sitting around bullshitting about one, to "having meetings" to actually building something, to building something that can actually produce weapons-grade material.  It's only in the latter stages that you commit to significant expense.  And those committments seem to have come after 2003 in the case of Iran.

So committing to building a nuclear power plant (from which they'd get the plutonium they'd need) in the face of international protests and sanctions is just 'bullshitting' about a weapons program?  Did you honestly think that building the plant and all the other facilities (dispersed and hardened to avoid the Osirak scenario) wasn't a "significant expense" to a country whose economy is in the toilet?

According to you they did all of that because they figured someday they might actually want to go ahead and build some bombs and they wanted to keep their options open? What are they the fucking Boy Scouts and they just wanted to Be Prepared?

Again icus, it's rather convenient that your definition of when Iran really wanted to build a bomb just so happens to coincide with a time frame that fits your anti-Bush agenda.

127 Icus, we did sell weapons to our enemies in Iran.

We accept that, and the congress and basically everybody else admitted we sold weapons to our enemies.  That doesn't make Iran anything but our enemy.

128 Whoops, forgot to italicize DrewM's quote at the beginning of my last post.
Posted by: icus at December 11, 2008 02:03 PM (mOFr4)

Don't worry, I think most people can see where reality ends in that comment and your nuttiness starts.

129 But since that reactor was never fueled, it's hard to say the Iraqis got very far.

Fueling a reactor is one of the end steps of making a nuclear bomb. It is the point of no-return when an attack on the program could cause fallout across the region, especially in an above-ground reactor.

Iraq had a gun in hand. Who cares if it was loaded or not? The Israelis got the bastard.

130 By the way, Osirak was the french name for the Iraqi reactor.  It was named after Osiris.  The GOD OF THE DEAD.  Keep in mind also that around this time more French weapons were sold to Iraq than the rest of the world COMBINED.

France accepted that it was arming Iraq.  It was a stalwart ally of the Baathists, and even Iran hated France for this, calling Chirac 'Shah Iraq' as a play off his name.

Anyone blaming Bush for Iran's nukes is crazy not to admit that Chirac gave Iran 10000x the motivation to have a nuke program than Bush ever did.

131

V the K has got it right; when it comes it will be disguised as something else - a new organization maybe, with ties to Pakistan.

Realizing this weakness in the plan, Obama will then need to declare that ANY nuke attack on Israel will result in the destruction of Iran.  AQ, which already has at least one nuke and "permission" to use it, says hmmmm...we got a free shot at Israel!

This is not a deterrent to them; it is an incentive to attack.

Netanyahu will likely win and will be a better deterrent, even silent, than any bluster that comes out of the mouths of Obama/Clinton.

132 Btw, these are two countries (Iran and Iraq) that can hardly build a tank indigenously, or match the basic technology of 1920's California. For the most advanced weaponry known to man, they just do not start and stop on a dime.

133 Vercingetorix is right.  Osirik was merely 570 miles from Tel Aviv specifically because the French engineers knew Israel would suffer massive deaths from bombing a fueled reactor.  This is why Israel had to take the reactor out ebfore it was fueled.

This is comically basic stuff.  The French thought they had a master plan for reigning in Israel, but Prime Minister Begin refused to accept that scenario.  I wish the world had leaders like him today.

134 Another reason this is stupid: Amadinnerjacket believes if he ushers in the apocalypse via nuclear holocaust, the Madhi will come.

Saying that we'll turn Iran into a nuclear wasteland after they've bombed Israel kinda plays into that whole uber-Twelver Shia plan.

135

the precious went to pakistan with his buddy in college, anyone know if they shared the bed? yum yum, love those falafel balls

136

Is anything I said about Iranian cooperation with the US in Afghanistan false?  Didn't the US sell arms to Iran in the 1980s?    Didn't the Iranians offer a deal in 2003?

Is anything you said false? Yes.   If you had any intellectual honesty you would know what it is.  I'm done with you. I've already corrected you a number of times.   

137

Again icus, it's rather convenient that your definition of when Iran really wanted to build a bomb just so happens to coincide with a time frame that fits your anti-Bush agenda.

That's my belief, yes.  Certainly the rhetoric out of Tehran has stepped up since 2003, and the intensity of the centrifuge construction.  I also think Bush helped Ahmedinajad get elected over Khatami, whose offers to the US were rebuffed.  When you have a foreign leader threatening you in public, it usually helps the rabble-rousing jingoist candidate over the moderate who favors diplomacy - just read the comments here.

I also think Bush has created the condition under which Iran can pursue a nuclear program with impunity.  If we didn't have so many forces already overstretched in the region, we wouldn't have any vulnerability to Iranian countermoves.  As one Iraqi said to me, "the Iranians have 150,000 American hostages in Iraq now."

The weakness is a function of either (1) invading Iraq in the first place; (2) fucking Iraq up so that we still have 150,000 troops there today; (3) not cutting a deal with Iran when we had the chance; or (4) not significantly expanding the size of the armed forces once Bush decided on fighting wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and covering for other contingencies (like Iran).  You can make the choice, but how you can deny that there wasn't a big error in there?

 

138 There are some pretty interesting comments and writers on this thread. And then there is Icus. Could we perhaps focus on the interesting stuff and ignore the troll?

139

This deal you keep referring to , I do not think it means what you think it means.  Try doing some research on the provenance of this 'deal' and the responses from other experts instead of getting your information from biased  sources. 

(You think you're out but they keep pulling you back in.)

140 Yep, Amy... I suspect Ahmedinijad would be kinda disappointed if attacking Israel didn't cause an escalation.

If he strikes Israel (or anyone else does), he has already won no matter what we do in response.  The only way to defeat someone who wants total destruction is to stop them before they get a chance.  You can't murder the suicidal.

141
So committing to building a nuclear power plant (from which they'd get the plutonium they'd need) in the face of international protests and sanctions is just 'bullshitting' about a weapons program?  Did you honestly think that building the plant and all the other facilities (dispersed and hardened to avoid the Osirak scenario) wasn't a "significant expense" to a country whose economy is in the toilet?

According to you they did all of that because they figured someday they might actually want to go ahead and build some bombs and they wanted to keep their options open? What are they the fucking Boy Scouts and they just wanted to Be Prepared?

Again icus, it's rather convenient that your definition of when Iran really wanted to build a bomb just so happens to coincide with a time frame that fits your anti-Bush agenda.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 11, 2008 02:10 PM (hlYel)

Excellent reply.

Icus is basically arguing that the tough part of building a skyscraper is installing the cubicles, or the hard part of building an automobile is installing the battery, putting oil in the crankcase and filling the tank with gas.

And you wouldn't build a skyscraper or automobile to use it, but rather to have it if you wanted to use it later for some reason.

It's insanity, but that's what you get when you mix leftists with foreign policy.

142 If we didn't have so many forces already overstretched in the region, we wouldn't have any vulnerability to Iranian countermoves.  As one Iraqi said to me, "the Iranians have 150,000 American hostages in Iraq now."
Posted by: icus at December 11, 2008 02:31 PM (mOFr4)

That's bullshit. Yes, having American's in Iraq presents targets for Iran but they had a whole set of targets before we went anywhere near Iraq in 2003 as well.

Let's not forget that before AQ on 9/11, Hezbollah was the number one killer of Americans through terrorism. Do you really think they and their Iranian masters didn't already have a 'to do' list of places to attack before then? You're also assuming that Iraqi security forces (imperfect though improving as they are) are simply going to sit around now or in the future and let Iranian agents turn their country into a battlefield again. There are less opportunities now for Iran to kill Americans in Iraq or create as much chaos as there was two or three years ago. I'm not saying it's totally gone, just less than before and decreasing all the time.

I also love the idea implicit in your point 4 above that if stupid Bush hadn't invaded Iraq you and other liberals would have supported him if he wanted to go into Iran. That's just hysterical. You guys always support some hypatheical action, never the one actually taken.

143 And then there is Icus. Could we perhaps focus on the interesting stuff and ignore the troll?

I've had this discussion with others but I'll say it again fwiw, I don't think icus is a troll. He's a liberal and he hates Bush but he will argue with you and directly address your points and questions.

I disagree with him and his conclusions (obviously) but he's thought about this stuff, seems to have some sort of defense background and doesn't rely on cut and paste talking points.

Sadly, he's as as good a proponent for the left as were are likely to see.

How's that for a left handed compliment icus?

144 Watching ichor post is like watching someone try to wallpaper a room with wet toilet paper.

145 I agree Drew M.  Icus is as good as it gets with liberals on this blog.  He's not a troll.  He's wrong in basic ways, but I understand his point of view.

It goes without saying that he's either willfully overlooking the facts or kinda crazy, but that's not nearly as bad as diderot's dog.

146 Back on target... how is Israel supposed to react to this?

Obama isn't even the president yet.  Why is he making these pronouncements now, before he is in office?  IF there is a negative reaction to this, it's on Bush's watch but Bush can't restrain Obama.

If Israel refuses to cede its sovereign defense to Obama, is that then a pretense to refuse to nuke Iran after Iran nukes Tel Aviv?  If Israel accepts, is that a pretense for Nuke inspectors entering Israel to search for nukes 'on both sides'?

Obama should talk to Israel behind closed doors about this stuff.  If you are talking about nuclear weapons use, you need to have it planned out and your friends need to be on board.  Obama's is the least responsible way.

147

I-I

C-Can't

U-Understand

S-Shite

148

>"how is Israel supposed to react to this?"

Same O, same O,  "Israel refuses to confirm of deny that the State of Israel has any nuclear weapons."

Mission accomplished.  (put that in your cigarette and smoke, Barry)

149 We all recall Mccain noting that Obama's stated intentions with Pakistan were not unwise except that he fucking broadcast his future strategy.  Mccain was basically making the most important point: To Obama, foreign policy is about the press coverage and the positive impact Obama can derive.  Basically the opposite of Bush, who clearly would defend this country as best he can even if 100% of polls disagreed with him.

Obama is showing a strong pattern of blabbing to reporters about foreign policy in broad and dramatic ways.  He's already raising the stakes and promising more nuclear war if properly provoked.  Before he's in power. 

We are in for some ROUGH times.  It's not a bad time to invest if you know what kinds of investments survive rough times.

150 As one Iraqi said to me, "the Iranians have 150,000 American hostages in Iraq now."

Someone tell icus that we'd still have 50k troops in the Gulf for the embargo and the no-fly zone. That same psychokinetic fissionist would say, with appropriate somberness, "the Iranians have 50,000 American hostages in the Gulf," in your perfect world.

No sale.

The weakness is a function of either (1) invading Iraq in the first place;

Iraq absorbed the lionshare of terrorists and funding from Arab countries. Otherwise we would have had to fight an Iraq-scale counterinsurgency in Afghanistan, which is much harder. Iraq has been bruising. A solo Afghanistan - while still maintaining "containment!" - would have been a failure. Try putting 150k American soldiers in Afghanistan - a landlocked, mountainous country - and see if everyone from Russia to Iran to China to Pakistan doesn't come to dinner.

(2) fucking Iraq up so that we still have 150,000 troops there today;

We didn't break it. We put it back together. And those 150k troops are within spitting distance of Iran, manning airbases, etc. Military presence = strength, in a military conflict, by definition.

(3) not cutting a deal with Iran when we had the chance; or

What deal? Most Favored Nation status? Nonsense and idiocy, icus, is what you offer.

(4) not significantly expanding the size of the armed forces once Bush decided on fighting wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and covering for other contingencies (like Iran). 

The Surge succeeded. Say it. It increased the troop numbers by 10-15%. It was never numbers of troops. It was always tactics.

And nobody is talking about invading Iran. We are talking about bombing the hell out of Iran, which we can do while sipping lemonade in Texas.

You can make the choice, but how you can deny that there wasn't a big error in there?

The only error was in abandoning the lessons learned in Vietnam by our military, our Army and my Marines. And in shoehorning stupid politics into the battlespace (ROE, two battles of Fallujah when it should have been just one, or none at all with aggressive moves first).

It was a military conflict. The military failures belong to our generals - who counseled utterly stupid things such as leaving the Sunni Triangle alone during the invasion itself (thus letting the insurgency become law), castling in bases (thus denying protection of the populace from the 'insurgents'), and allowed lawyers to dictate rules of engagement for our troops (giving mosques, for instance, free passes), the successes belong to the eventual brilliance of our troops.

151

DrewM. at December 11, 2008 02:45 PM (hlYel)

To me he's more annoying than a regular troll because he's dishonest in what he presents as facts.  You have two choices when debating with the likes of icus. You can first correct base inaccuracies before you  proceed with the debate or you can just ignore the minor or moderate inaccuracies to move the disussion forward.  The first is annoying and wastes time and the second ultimately screws you in the end.    

152 Vercingetorix, well said.

Especially the part about how fighting the counterinsurgency resources in Iraq beats the hell out of fighting them in Afghanistan.

If anyone thinks that wasn't the point, they are delusional.  We needed to let Iraq simmer some... let the Iraqis get sick of the 'civil war' tactics and band together, sunni and shiite, against our common foe.  We also needed to suck billions of dollars and tens of thousands of terrorists out of the terrorist world.  This is a big reason why we aren't missing any more skyscrapers.  Iraq has helped the GWOT in a way nothing else could.  

Afghanistan is very difficult to even walk across, let alone fight in.  We were very wise to wait.  Iraq has too much oil (money for weapons and terrorists) to be permitted to have an active effort against the USA.  Afghanistan is basically nothing but a resourceless location for terrorists while Iraq has the means to build bad things.

153 Try putting 150k American soldiers in Afghanistan - a landlocked, mountainous country - and see if everyone from Russia to Iran to China to Pakistan doesn't come to dinner.

The dinner analogy made me laugh. I don't know why but it did.

154 polynikes, pointing out Icus's inaccuracies helps to re-enforce reality for all of us.  We are all more acutely aware of France's betrayal of civilization when we recall how they gave so many weapons to a man who gassed his own citizens.

You should ignore him if he pisses you off too much (and I certainly understand why he would), but the discussion isn't unhelpful to have.  I know I had to reassert my basic point that Osirik was meant to be deadly a dozen times, basically to a brick wall, but the conversation moved on anyway.  Too many echo chambers on the internet, and it gets so old watching the liberal trolls speak utter nonsense (which oddly stopped after the election... hmmmm).

Icus is left arguing that Iran is a threat beause of Bush... he can't argue that it isn't a threat at all.  Which is sadly real progress from the leftist mindset on November 3rd.

155 Apparently the umbrella is an agreement to respond (unilaterally? I hope not!) 'in kind'. So if Iran launches against Israel, we will annihilate all the joos in Iran. That'll teach 'em!

156

@40: fezbollah?  Is that like a militant splinter faction of The Shriners?

The mini-car car bombs would be pretty funny, though.

157 Posted by: polynikes at December 11, 2008 03:01 PM (m2CN7)

I don't doubt he's annoying but I don't think he lies. He looks at certain things through a lefty prism and draws stupid conclusions.

Look at the whole Iranian Ambassador at the Bonn Conference thing. I don't doubt American diplomats thought he was a swell guy. icus and the folks coming into the Obama administration look at that and think, 'hey, we're on the verge of an important rapprochement with Iran and we need to respond". Others look at it as Iran responding to American offensive pressure and a concern about whether or not they are next and conclude that we should push forward because ultimately the Iranian regime isn't reformable.

No one is factually wrong, it just comes down to judgment, experience and worldview.

158 Looking through a lefty prism requires you to lie.  For example take a look on his take about the alleged deal offered by Iran in 2003 and then look at the facts.  I understand where you're coming from so I'll take my own advice and leave icus to you guys.

159

How's that for a left handed compliment icus?

Thank you.  I agree there are many facts, it's all a question of interpretation.  Since I agreed with Shinseki in 2003, I trust my own judgment.

Thinking about the issue of Osirak, it struck me how powerless Iraq was to respond to Israel in that case.  The Israelis had freedom of action because Iraq was already tied up with Iran and had no way of retaliating.  The Iraqis had no ability to project power.

The dilemma raised by the current situation is that unlike Iraq in 1981, Iran has ways of responding if anyone bombs them.  They can respond in many asymmetric ways whoever bombs.   Iran is already projecting power into Iraq and Afghanistan, where the US is.

If Israel bombs Iran, the rational but asymmetric response of the Iranians would be to attack US forces in the region.  Even if the US does not greenlight an Israeli attack, the Iranians will claim there was US support and most of the world will believe them.  US servicemembers being killed because of Iranian reaction to Israeli actions could either bring the US closer to Israel, or split them apart.

There's really no way of determining the argument now.  I would prefer not to have to say "I told you so" after the shit hits the fan, Scuds start hammering the US Embassy and Al-Faw Palace (MNFI HQ) in Baghdad, a few FOBs are overrun, LOCs to central Iraq are cut, Bahrain goes into chaos, and a few US naval vessels, freighters and tankers are sunk with anti-ship missiles.

160

>" Even if the US does not greenlight an Israeli attack, the Iranians will claim there was US support and most of the world will believe them."

 

The Israelis don't need ANYBODY'S permission to continue to exist.  If other nations, including Iran, want to hold the U.S. responsible then that is their lookout.  I figure the world is going to hurt a lot more siding with Iran than the U.S.  and I'll bet most foreign governments would agree.

161 Since I agreed with Shinseki in 2003, I trust my own judgment.
Posted by: icus at December 11, 2008 04:06 PM (mOFr4)

Don't pat yourself on the back to hard for that one. Not even Shinseki claims all that much credit.

Don't get me wrong, he deserves some credit but he kind of threw a number out there and by his own admission he never fought for it. The myth is mightier than the reality in that case.

And without going that far down an old path, there was no magic number. "Several hundred thousand troops" might have created other problems we didn't encounter. History is rarely a neat binary choice between total success/total failure. Every option had it's pluses and minuses, it costs and benefits. We just only know the outcome of one set of choices, so the others look good in theory but were never tested in reality.


The dilemma raised by the current situation is that unlike Iraq in 1981, Iran has ways of responding if anyone bombs them. 

Very rarely in the history of warfare does one get to fight an enemy who can't shoot back. If they couldn't, they wouldn't be much of a threat in the first place.

Look, I don't take the dangers of Iran's response lightly (not even from the comfort of my home office) but not acting doesn't guarantee a safe future with unicorns and rainbows either.

The choice you offer (attack=danger, don't attack=safe) is a false one. The real choice is between a proven aggressor (Iran) without nuclear weapons or a proven aggressor with nuclear weapons.

162

Look, I don't take the dangers of Iran's response lightly (not even from the comfort of my home office) but not acting doesn't guarantee a safe future with unicorns and rainbows either.

The choice you offer (attack=danger, don't attack=safe) is a false one. The real choice is between a proven aggressor (Iran) without nuclear weapons or a proven aggressor with nuclear weapons.

Oh, I agree, we're screwed almost any way. 

My idea is go to the Iranians and say, you really don't want nukes.  First, we're not going to attack you just for regime change, so you won't need them for deterrence.  We can work out issues in the way we've done in the recent past in Iraq.  Second, if you get nukes, you will have to worry about Israeli nukes targeting you, and given the distances they will be on a hair-trigger.  Third, when you have nukes we're going to act on the presumption that any mystery nuke going off anywhere is your doing.  If something goes off, someone's going to have to pay, and it's going to be you.  So you will have to worry about other stray nukes.  Remove the threat to Iran without nukes and point out the threat to Iran with nukes. 

But Iran is not really a threat to the USA even with nukes.  Sure, they could manage to ship a nuke in on a container, but what would that accomplish except their own total destruction?   Pakistan or Russia are almost as much as a threat in that way, just through corruption or incompetence.  I also don't think Iran's going to nuke Israel just for the hell of it.  If they do get nukes, I'm sure that more than one person will be involved in their nuke command and control, and none of them will be Ahmedinajad. 

I'm old enough to remember the warlike rhetoric of Khrushchev and Mao in the 1960s, so I can take what comes out of Iran now with a grain of salt.  Like the Russians and the Chinese then, the Iranians have behaved pretty rationally in their actions.  When they make a move, it is from a well-defended position for some achieveable goal.  We could go round and round about how much of an "aggessor" Iran is.   I don't see that much aggression.  We backed the Shah, his insane militarism, and his secret-police state.  The revolutionary regime in Iran resented that and reacted.  We backed Saddam when he attacked Iran.  They reacted, including in Lebanon.

In fact, when you look at both Iran and Iraq, it's almost impossible to overstate the amount of bitterness generated by perceived and actual US involvement in the Iran-Iraq war.  For God's sake, we didn't even have the integrity to back only one side.  There are still a lot of grieving widows and mothers in both countries.

163 Icus, Iran could kill some of our folks if they wanted, but it would not be long before our forces stopped them.

I've heard they have those ramjet missiles ready to strike our carriers, but I believe that's an exaggeration.  If they do it could be pretty bad for us.

They would indeed be harder to beat than Iraq, but I'm pretty sure we would have no trouble militarily defeating them.  That's not the hard part.

Shinseki is a great man who left half his foot in Vietnam and did a good job modernizing the Army.  But he was wrong about Iraq.  The Andrew Sullivan idea that we just didn't have enough troops was BS.  At the initial point of counterinsurgency in Iraq, more troops would have meant more casualties.  If anything, we had too many troops in Iraq.  The Iraqis had to get sick of teh bad guys before we could win.

And as has been pointed out many times, we DID NOT WANT Iraq to be over quickly.  We needed Iraq as flypaper for terrorist money, commo, and personnel.  that's why we haven't been attacked again.  Winning Iraq quickly was not the point.

164 Since I agreed with Shinseki in 2003, I trust my own judgment.

Shinseki was spitballing, not going with historical precedent. Vietnam in '68 had five hundred thousand troops, but that force was no more effective in bringing the war to a close than the subsequent years. Indeed, four years later, we still had over a hundred thousand troops in Vietnam.

Shinseki has since been proven quite wrong, again with the success of the Surge. Petraeus followed none of Shinseki's proscriptions.

Tactics and aggression, not numbers, win wars. Shinseki, ever wrong.

165

Iran and Iraq fought each other to a standstill from 1980-1989.

The U.S. defeated Iraq in 2 weeks, twice.

How hard could Iran be?

166 My idea is go to the Iranians and say, you really don't want nukes.
Posted by: icus at December 11, 2008 05:02 PM (mOFr4)

See, I think even if we have the mythical regime change (any day now right Mr. Ledeen?) they will still want nukes. Iranians are proud of their culture (deservedly so for a lot of reasons) and think they should be with the big boys. Nukes are how you get a seat at the adult table.

Maybe some ideal government wouldn't be dangerous but it still sets off a dangerous arms race in that region.


But Iran is not really a threat to the USA even with nukes.

Again, I don't think the Iranians need to use nukes to get their money's worth out of them. They might be willing to trade some of their cities to kill lots of Jews but really they will just keep pushing or rattling their saber when they want to jack up the price of oil and nukes let them do it with impunity. Just look at Pakistan vis-a- vie India for an example of how having nukes gives you a Get Out of Jail Free Card for your adventures.

In fact, when you look at both Iran and Iraq, it's almost impossible to overstate the amount of bitterness generated by perceived and actual US involvement in the Iran-Iraq war.

Yes, evil America, hated by everyone. You know, the Soviets were pouring weapons into Iraq as well. I think the Iranians and Iraqis are a little angrier at each other than at us over that war.

167 I don't see that much aggression. 

Precisely your problem. Change your prescriptions.

We backed the Shah, his insane militarism, and his secret-police state.  The revolutionary regime in Iran resented that and reacted. 

They didn't react. They acted. Seizing an embassy is not a reflex, natural as a sneeze.

We backed Saddam when he attacked Iran.  They reacted, including in Lebanon.

Exactly how much mass murder are you willing to accept? Can these poor dears ever do wrong, icus?

168 The hollow promise to defend Israel, has the same intent as Samantha Power's suggestion to invade Israel, and that is to force Israel to make concessions... that will undermine her security and lead to thousands of deaths of Jews.

169

Yes, Iran may want nukes for reasons of national pride.  In which case I think they will act like a proud nation, not a suicidal one. I think they can be talked out of it though.

Yes, evil America, hated by everyone. You know, the Soviets were pouring weapons into Iraq as well. I think the Iranians and Iraqis are a little angrier at each other than at us over that war.

You'd be surprised, or maybe not, at the extent to which America is blamed even for the things we had little to do with in the Middle East.  Iraqis who are on our side now believe we manipulated Saddam into committing national suicide.  The obvious target is forgone for the idea of the conspiracy of the man behind the curtain.  Which often enough was the USA, unfortunately.  A lot of that was completely justified by the Cold War and the huge threat of the Soviets, of course.

Example: Brezinski said that while we helped a lot in creating an international jihad in Afghanistan to fight the Godless Soviets, it was worth it, because the threat of the international jihad we helped create in no way matches the threat of the USSR.  I agree.  The error is in not recognizing that US actions and statements cause blowback.  Not talking to Iran over the last years has made zero sense, though.

Shinseki was spitballing, not going with historical precedent.

Huh?  Shinseki specifically used the historical precedents of Bosnia, Kosovo and even the post-war occupations of Germany and Japan in determining the ratio of occupation forces vs. civil population. 

And as has been pointed out many times, we DID NOT WANT Iraq to be over quickly.  We needed Iraq as flypaper for terrorist money, commo, and personnel.  that's why we haven't been attacked again.  Winning Iraq quickly was not the point.

You mean we meant to create that mess in Iraq 2003-2007?  Ya, "I meant to do that."  Not getting attacked again mostly depends on border controls and airline security.  There won't be another 9/11, the next attack will be different.  There are more fighters now than in March 2003, because we've been so inept on the PR side, and there's more than enough money available.   Iraq had only a negative effect on both the number of fighters and the amount of money we had available for things like customs inspection.

 

170 Shinseki specifically used the historical precedents of Bosnia, Kosovo and even the post-war occupations of Germany and Japan in determining the ratio of occupation forces vs. civil population.

Germany, as I'm sure you have pointed out before, is not Iraq. Wrong model. Shinseki is still wrong.

171 The error is in not recognizing that US actions and statements cause blowback.  Not talking to Iran over the last years has made zero sense, though.
Posted by: icus at December 11, 2008 06:14 PM (mOFr4)

Except as you've pointed out a couple of times, we have been talking to Iran over at least the last 7 or 8 years. There's the Bonn Conference, the time Condi Rice publicly begged the Iranians to come to a regional conference in Egypt and Crocker has met with Iranian diplomats in Iraq on a number of occasions.

Those are the public ones I can think of off the top of my head without even going to Google. Now neither you nor I believe the public talks are the only ones, so let's not play that 'we didn't talk to Iran' game.

And of course actions and statements have blow back but 'nobody moves, nobody gets hurt' is not exactly an option for us, is it?  So yeah, everything we do leads to reactions. We even keep track of them, it's called human history.

172 icus, you really think preventing the next attack relies on airline security?

Of course it doesn't.  That's absurd.  And you can claim that Iraq shouldn't have been used as flypaper but you can't claim it wasn't.  This isn't some ad hoc justification.  This is what we were talking about before the invasion.  Read 2003 editorials on the flypaper strategy and read the AUMF. 

Or don't.  You don't seem to have an open mind.

173

The current debate is taking place in light of the Military Intelligence assessment that Iran has passed beyond the point of no return

Not yet we haven't, but within a year we will.

Do they (disbleievers) wait for the angels to come to them (to take souls at death) ... Sura 16:33

174

Yes, Iran may want nukes for reasons of national pride.  In which case I think they will act like a proud nation, not a suicidal one. I think they can be talked out of it though.

Of course we can be talked out of it.  Just keep talking until the end of next year.

(Sura 2:29)

175 Wow it's interesting to watch icus move the goal posts throughout this thread.  Notice how he refuses to be pinned down on ANY of his statements.  True honest debater that one!

K

176

Of course it doesn't.  That's absurd.  And you can claim that Iraq shouldn't have been used as flypaper but you can't claim it wasn't.  This isn't some ad hoc justification.  This is what we were talking about before the invasion.  Read 2003 editorials on the flypaper strategy and read the AUMF. 

I think we attracted a lot of young guys from other Arab countries who wanted to get to Iraq because  we were there.  They were also easily able to get to Iraq from the neighboring countries of Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the not-distant countries of Egypt, etc.

I also think that those guys would have stayed in their countries playing video games if we weren't in Iraq.  It's not like they would have been streaming into the USA.

"Flypaper" is a bullshit term.  The correct term would be "live bait," with US troops as the live bait.  But we were catching and killing mostly small fry.

177 Indeed, Allaah does not guide he who is a liar and [confirmed] disbeliever." [Sura 39:3]

178 Drew M.@31:  I know military action comes with costs. So does a nuclear armed Iran. It's not as if one option is cost free.....If there were a cost free option, I'd take it. I just don't see one.

So what happens when you look around and realize your society has been living in wish-on-a-star, magical-thinking, Easy Street dreamland for so long that it's lost  he basic, timeless concept that nothing in life is cost-free? Just look at our bailoutmania. Look at our trade deficit.  Look at consumer debt.  Compare the whining and hysteria of the last five years of war with American willingness to sacrifice and stick it out during World War II, a bogglingly bloodier, scarier war.

We've gone soft. And our enemy--radical Islam--is very, very hard.

If peace is what Americans want above all else, it's very simple. We submit to Islam.

179 Welcome to wow gold our wow Gold and wow power leveling store. We wow gold are specilized, wow power leveling professional and reliable wow power leveling website for wow power leveling selling and wow gold service. By the world of warcraft gold same token,we offer wow power leveling the best WoW service wow power leveling for our long-term and wow powerleveling loyal customers. wow powerleveling You will find wow powerleveling the benefits and value powerlevelingwe created powerleveling different from other sites. As to most people, power leveling they are unwilling to power leveling spend most of wow power leveling the time wow gold grinding money Rolex for mounts or rolex replica repair when replica rolex they can purchase Watches Rolex what they Rolex Watches are badly need. The Watch Rolex only way is to look Rolex Watch for the best place RS Gold to buy Cheap WARHAMMER ONLINE GOLD. Yes! You find it here! Our WoW Gold supplying service has already accumulated a high reputation and credibility. We have plenty of Gold suppliers, which will guarantee our delivery instant. Actually, we have been getting RuneScape Gold tons of postive feedbacks from our loyal RuneScape Money customers who really appreciate our service.

180 Hi guys. The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed. Help me! There is an urgent need for sites: Premium lace front wigs. I found only this - lace front wigs no glue. HomeAbout JK HanokRelease TermsSubmit Press ReleasePremium Service Lose Weight Fast - 10 Easy Ways To Knock Weight Off Quickly! With respect ;-), Cleo from Poland.

181 Wedding Dresses

182 very interesting to read.I enjoyed well while reading.I will recommend my friends to read this one for sure.

lingerie wholesale | wholesale lingerie | sexy lingerie | Halloween Costume Wholesale | Wholesale Corsets | Wholesale fancy dress | Wholesale Christmas Lingerie |  

183 Some people like LV handbags,Some people like Chanel handbags,but most popel have been keeping an eye on cheap fashion brand handbags .we often talk about all kinds of designer handbags with my friends,most of my friends also like cheap fashion brand handbags.We admire cheap fashion brand handbags designer who often be able to design so many stylish handbags.We want to be a handbag抯 designer in the future too. In our store online，you can buy all series of cheap fashion brand handbags，include: Louis Vuitton,LV Luggage,LV Wallets,LV Agendas,LV Belts,LV Shoes,LV Accessories,Gucci,Gucci Wallets,Gucci Shoes,Marc Jacobs handbags,Marni handbags,Miu Miu handbags,Mulberry handbags,Prada handbags,Thomaswylde handbags,TOD handbags,Bottega Veneta handbags,D&G handbags,Dior handbags,YSL handbags,Coach handbags

184 Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots

185 buy Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
air force 1 shoes
nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force onefrom usa

186 Come to our website for shopping with high quality and best service! There have new products,MBT M. Walk
and MBT Lami,Welcome everybody to buy it.

187 Buy discount ugg shoes
cheap ugg shoes
cheap ugg
ugg rainier
buy ugg
ugg usa
discount ugg boots
ugg 5825
ugg shoes sale
ugg sundance
ugg shoes
cheap ugg boots
ugg 5815
ugg sale
ugg uk
ugg knightsbridge
womens ugg boots
ugg boots
ugg australia
ugg 5819free shipping

188 Hi! MPlcqkFf

189 buy [url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-coquette-casual-shoes-c-22]ugg rainier[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]buy ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg usa[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-short-c-1]ugg 5825[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-sundance-c-5]ugg sundance[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-tall-c-3]ugg 5815[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg uk[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-knightsbridge-c-27]ugg knightsbridge[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]womens ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg australia[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-cardy-c-2]ugg 5819[/url]from usa

190 Replica Cartier | soccer jersey wholesale | Replica Omega | Replica Watches | Fake Watches | Replica Girard Perregaux Watch | Concord Watches Replica | Roger Dubuis Replica Watch | Swiss Watches | Fake Baume & Mercier Watches | Wholesale Patek Philippe Watch | Girard Perregaux Replica | Fake Aigner Watches | Seiko Fake | Replica Raymond Watch

191 soccer jersey supplier | Fake Cheap Rolex | soccer jersey supplier | Fake Watches | replica soccer jersey | Bvlgari Replica | Cartier Watches | Chanel Watches | Chanel Watches | IWC Replica | Hamilton Fake | Replica Chanel | Breguet Watches | Breitling Watches | Franck Muller Fake

192 Replica watches | replica soccer jersey | Replica Watches | Replica watches | Fake Watches | Hermes Fake | Replica Audemars Piguet | Concord Fake Watches | A Lange & Sohne Fake | Tissot Replica Watch | Movado Watch Replica | Replica Cartier | Glashutte Watch | Ebel Replica | Bedat & CO Replica Watches

193 Replica watches | Replica Watches | Replica Omega | soccer jersey supplier | Replica Breitling Watches | Fendi Replica Watches | Replica Other Watches | Movado Watches Replica | Replica U-boat Watches | watches brand | Replica Hermes | Fake Porsche | Replica Dkny Watch | Chopard Fake Watches | Fendi Replica

194 mbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
buy mbt shoes
shoes mbt sale

195 The proper function of man is to live, but not to exist.ugg classic cardyConquer fear of death and you are put into possession of your life. ugg classic tallThere is a time to speak and a time to be silent. ugg knightsbridgefree shippingmbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
MBT M.Walk

196 hot news for brand shoes online store ,do you want to win more discount ?and popular for younger,and nike air maxwith top quality A ,come on all air max shoes with lowest price for highest quality !

197 Fake Watches | Replica Omega | soccer jersey wholesale | soccer jersey wholesale | Replica Omega | Fake Watches | soccer jersey supplier | Fake Cheap Rolex | best replica watches | replica wristwatch | watches brand | Luxury watches | replica wristwatch | best replica watches | watches brand | Luxury watches | replica watches | replica watches | watches brand | replica wristwatch | replica watches | replica watches | best replica watches | best replica watches | watches brand | replica watches | replica wristwatch | replica watches | Luxury watches | best replica watches | replica wristwatch | replica watches | replica watches | best replica watches | watches brand | replica watch | replica watches | replica watch

198 We supply authentic discount Lacoste Shoes
Lacoste Trainers
New Lacoste
Lacoste Sale
Mens Lacoste
camden lacoste trainers
lacoste trainers shoes
lacoste camden retro
camden lacoste trainers
lacoste carnaby shoes
lacoste carnaby retro
lacoste shoes sale
New Lacoste shoes
Lacoste shoes online
cheap Lacoste shoes
Lacoste shoe
mens lacoste shoes
Lacoste Shua Lace
Black Lace shoes
white Lace shoes
lacoste swerve shoes
White Lacoste shoes
Lacoste shoes sale
Cheap Lacoste shoes
Lacoste Women Shoes
Women Lacoste Shoes
Lacoste Shoes online
on line, cheap price,Top quality,Free shipping!

199 Corrosion Pendant Yiwu | Wood Bangle Best | Carbon Fiber Bangle Luxury | Casting Rings Wholesale | Magnet Necklace Cheap | Gold Bracelets Luxury | Wholesal Titanium Jewelry | Wood Bangle Best | Wholesale Laser Rings Jewelry | Casting Bracelet Cheap | Plating Pendant Wholesale | Earrings Tiffany Wholesale | Plating Cufflink Luxury | Gold Bracelets Luxury | Leather Bracelets Yiwu | Stamping Bracelet Cheap | Cross Pendants Best | Plating Bracelet Wholesale | Magnet Bracelets Cheap | Stainless Steel Rings Yiwu

200 Key Rings Cheap | Wholesale Tungsten Jewelry Jewelry | Wholesale Key Ring Jewelry | Tiffanys | Small Necklace Luxury | Rubber Necklace Cheap | Casting Rings Luxury | Tungsten Rings Wholesale | Gold Tungsten Wholesale | Wholesale Links of London Jewelry Jewelry | Plating Bangles | Ceramic Jewelry Cheap | Laser Pendant Cheap | Laser Earring Yiwu | Charms Tiffany Cheap | Corrosion Rings Cheap | Cuff Links Tiffany Cheap | Wood Bangles Yiwu | Wholesale Corrosion Ring Jewelry | Watches Luxury

201 Replica Watches | Replica Watches | IWC Fake | Tissot Watches Replica | Longines Replica | Fake Christian Dior Watches | Tissot Watches | Jacob & Co Watch Replica | Replica Longines Watches | Breitling Fake | Piaget Watches Replica | Omega Fake Watches | Mont Blanc Watch Replica | Rado Replica Watches | Blancpain Replica | Bedat & CO Replica Watch | Panerai Replica | A Lange & Sohne Watch Replica | Rado Replica | Blancpain Replica Watches | Piaget Fake Watches | Bedat & CO Watches Replica | Fake Concord Watches | Replica Baume & Mercier | Piaget Watches | Franck Muller Watch | Gucci Watches

202 Luxury Louis Vuitton handbags | Best Louis Vuitton Watches bags | Luxury Louis Vuitton Wallet handbags | Luxury Louis Vuitton Sport handbags | Hermes Replica bags | Mulberry Fake Handbags | Replica Fashion Louis Vuitton Monogram Multicolore handbags | Best Loewe bags | Luxury Hermes handbags | Balenciaga Replica bags | Replica Hermes Handbags | Best Marni bags | Louis Vuitton Belts Fake Handbags | Replica Louis Vuitton Monogram Denim Handbags | Best Versace bags | Replica Fashion Louis Vuitton Monogram handbags | Luxury Dior handbags | Replica Fashion Marc Jacobs handbags | Replica Fashion AH handbags | Coach Fake Handbags | Replica Burberry Handbags | Prada Replica bags | Gucci Belts Replica bags | Replica Louis Vuitton Handbags | Replica Gucci Handbags

203 Un total de once comunidades autnomas estn este jueves en alerta naranja Christmas gift ugg tall boots (riesgo importante) por nevadas y bajan las temperaturas en toda Espa09a, segn la Agencia Estatal de Meteorologa (AEMET). En concreto, se Christmas gift ugg napoule sandal trata de Aragn, Cantabria, Castilla-La Mancha, Catalu09a, Christmas gift timberland classic boots Madrid, Navarra, Comunidad Valenciana, Galicia, Pas Vasco, Asturias y Murcia. La cota de nieve bajar a menos de 200 metros en el CantbricoLa Pennsula Ibrica est bajo dos borrascas y un anticicln que crearn un pasillo que permitir el paso de una corriente de aire muy fro, como la que est provocando un temporal de fro glaciar en Europa, aunque es esperan que el fro que suframos no sea tan intenso como en otros pases. An as, se espera que las bajas temperaturas se mantengan hasta el domingo. La cota de nieve baja en el Cantbrico a menos de 200 metros

204 Gowns Wedding Gowns, Wedding Gowns Dresses

205

The H4 replica watches took replica watches Harrison a massive 13 years to replica watches construct-but this was only the end of a lifetime's work. His genius was clear from the very beginning. Unfortunately many astronomers such as Nevil Maskelyne were convinced that a mechanical solution replica watches would not work and that only astronomy could solve the replica watches longitude problem. The fact that Harrison was from a working class family and had little replica watches formal education probably didn't help his prospects.Solving the longitude problem through horology meant designing a timepiece that could work accurately at sea. When you watch consider the rolling waves, changes in replica watches temperature and generally adverse replica watches conditions the dificulty of this task becomes apparent.The H1 was completed in 1735 and proved replica successful at sea. However the Board of Longitude demanded a full a transatlantic wholesale watch voyage. They gave Harrison a grant of 500 pounds with which he began work on the H2 watches.

206 Certainly watches are Replica Watches used to help people record rolex Watches time, but rolex watches nowadays its functions have enlarged. Replica watches are now tag heuer Watches not only objects that tag heuer watches can tell you what time it is, they are also a status symbol. You should not feel strange when you find someone wearing a watch on his wrist, but use the cell phone to tell time. In that situation, the watch is just showing its luxurious function cartier watches. It is normal and cartier watches perhaps also happens to you. .If asked that among the watches of various brands, which one can suit your taste? There is no doubt that most people will choose Rolex. Whichever social class you are in, it is naturally Rolex was known breitling Watches and cherished breitling watches for a long time. However, the elements do not usually enter the market alone, always come with the price tag up to the hand. For this reason, many people, especially men, their dreams of luxury Rolex watches are buried in omega Watches his heart omega watches. What should I do? Rolex watches are simply stunning worn by the rich and famous, right? No, this world is not the world's richest men, is the world of each. All are equal before the search of luxury and be men's watches respected. Within men's watches, the law, when consumers are in the market, women's watches they should women's watches receive the same treatment. This is the real reason why replica Rolex watches are ladies watches ladies watches more welcome than Rolex. Because in this world are not difficult to understand that the rich are much less than people with low income, you agree with me? You are forced to nod and say with certainty that is the reality. These low-income people do not have enough money to save every month. They can not afford such luxury Rolex watches